2/27/10

demanding answers from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar regarding the embattled Bureau of Land Management. It's Wild Horse and Burro Program is under fire after the deaths of scores of horses in a mid-winter "gather" in Nevada's Calico Mountains.

The horses were stampeded into holding pens after a grueling chase by a roaring helicopter over rockey ground in freezing weather. Two foals died after losing their hooves in an excruciating lingering death.

Dear Secretary Salazar:

I am writing to thank you for your recent attention to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) Wild Horse and Burro Program and to seek information that would help me evaluate your proposed refoms to this program.

Wild horses and burros are majestic symbols of the American west and are beloved by many people for their remarkable intelligence, grace, beauty, and power. Unfortunately, these charismatic animals have also been at the center of great controversy for many decades.

Commercial harvesting once threatened wild horses and burros until public outrage led to their protection under the 1971 Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. After working to recover these species for many years, the BLM has recently begun trying to reduce populations once more due to concerns that the animals are now overpopulated. The BLM contends that unchecked population growth has led to decimation of forage, starvation, competition with native animals, and land use conflicts. However, many animal rights advocates contend that the animals are healthy when left alone in the wild and that the BLM's efforts to control populations are jeopardizing the survival of these iconic species.

To better understand your recent proposal for reforming the BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program and evaluate these different arguments, I would appreciate it if you could answer the following questions:

What techniques are used to estimate wild horse and burro populations, assess the genetic viability of herds, and determine appropriate management levels? Has there been any independent verification of the BLM's techniques or data to ensure that they are based in sound science?

What are the disadvantages of allowing wild horses and burros to remain unchecked in the wild? Has there been any independent documentation of the BLM's claims about the health of these animals, their impact on environmental conditions, and the need to remove them?

How does BLM ensure the humane treatment of wild horses and burros during roundups and retention in holding facilities? Has there been any independent confirmation of the humaneness of the BLM's treatment of these animals? Are there any alternative methods for rounding up the horses that might be less disruptive to these animals and possibly make them more suitable for adoption?

Do you have any specific sites in mind for the National Wild Horse Preserves that would be established under your new proposal? How many acres would be needed for these preserves? How many preserves would be federal and how many private?

How much would it cost to establish and manage these National Wild Horse Preserves? Can you provide me with a cost-benefit analysis comparing this proposal with the status quo and with leaving the horses where they are currently found?

This is a complex and emotional issue with important long-term ramifications for the future of our wild horse and burros. I appreciate your attention to this matter and your look forward to your timely response.

CHICAGO, (EWA) By now everyone is familiar with the subject of horses being neglected or starved, along with the claims from those in agricultural circles that slaughter is “necessary” to prevent horse neglect and that it is a way to dispose of unwanted horses. I’ve been hearing that litany from all of the agricultural publications and blogs, the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), various state Farm Bureaus and from a group of clueless politicians including Illinois Rep. Jim Sacia, Sue Wallis of Wyoming and former Texas congressman and paid slaughter lobbyist, Charles Stenholm.

I find it odd that they see slaughter as being the solution for horse neglect, but when it comes to neglected or starving cattle, they are stumped. In this USA Today article Starving cattle amid high prices for feed in Neb, Steven Stanec, executive director of the Nebraska Brand Committee, a state agency that helps police the cattle industry stated that “Neglect cases are on the rise, and what’s causing it, I’m not sure. We’re having whole herds of hundreds of cattle being neglected.”

In doing a simple Google search I found other related headlines which show that cattle starving to death is a fairly widespread problem. Officials raid farm with 30 dead, 100 plus starving cows, Starving cows rescued near Paisley on road to recovery and Starving cattle seized in Lake County.

According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, 34.4 million cattle were slaughtered in 2008, that’s an average of 94,247 cows slaughtered per day. According to Cattle Network, beef production is up over last year.

Now with all of those cattle going to slaughter, one would wonder why cattle neglect is happening. Using the logic that the AQHA, AVMA, NCBA, Farm Bureaus and the other proponents of the horse slaughter industry apply to starving or neglected horses that “slaughtering prevents neglect”, one would think that we wouldn’t have problems with starving or neglected cattle. Yet guys like Steven Stanec aren’t sure why cattle neglect cases are on the rise.

What further weakens the argument that "slaughter is needed to prevent horse neglect" is that while all of these articles have been written about neglected and starving horses, the option of horse slaughter has been available in the United States. Horse owners can take the horses they no longer want to keep to the local livestock auction and the neighborhood friendly kill buyers will happily take the horse off their hands.

According to statistics from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 134,059 American horses have been slaughtered at the European owned plants in Canada and Mexico in 2008. American horses still continue to go to slaughter as you read this, so the slaughter pipeline continues to function despite the claims to the contrary.

The reality is that slaughter has nothing to do with animal welfare. Since slaughter apparently doesn’t magically solve the problem of starving and neglected cattle, it is fallacy to think that slaughter will solve the problem of starving and neglected horses. The problem of cattle being neglected is due to the current economic crisis, that same economic crisis is making it difficult for horse owners.

In fact, a study released in June of 2008 showed there was no correlation between horse slaughter and neglect, but a clear linkage between unemployment and neglect. Prophetically, the study warned in its conclusions that if economic conditions continued to deteriorate an upward trend in neglect could be expected.

The AQHA, AVMA, NCBA, Farm Bureaus and all of their political allies put a lot of time, energy and money into supporting horse slaughter. If these special interest groups were to focus all of those resources on solving the nation’s economic problems rather than supporting a foreign owned industry that doesn't even pay their taxes, we might be able to get something done.

It is a pity they are so narrow minded.

Duane Burright is a software engineer by trade, aside from horses and their welfare he’s also interested in American musclecars, vintage electric fans, computers and software design. He has been involved in the campaign to make the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (AHSPA) law since 2003 and is a supporter of a nearby wild horse sanctuary.”

2/21/10

The economic reality of scarce and toxic horses

I was not surprised that Dr Tom Lenz, past president of the American Association of Equine Practitioners, readily credited the organisation for coining the phrase "Unwanted Horse" in his article "The Unwanted Horse in the United States - International Implications". It is a coup d'etat of language choice for those American equine practitioners lobbying hardest to maintain a US export market for horsemeat.
Dr Lenz manages to equate "unwanted" with "slaughtered for human consumption" and with "should be slaughtered for human consumption, but aren't, because we need additional slaughter plants on American soil".
Slaughter advocates might consider it nothing short of a stroke of genius.
The phrase "unwanted horse" may well play a role in much of the mass confusion in the debate on horse slaughter among the American general public, horse-owners and horse welfare advocates alike.
Horses slaughtered are neither privately nor socially "unwanted", for they command a positive price both at auction and at the slaughter plant gate - and I suspect that if they did not, we would not be having this debate at all.
As any Economics 101 student can tell you, positive prices signal not "unwanted-ness", but scarcity.
There is no question - and what drives fear into the most vehement supporters and even some opponents of horse slaughter - that a universal ban on the slaughter of American horses will eliminate a source of demand for horses in the lower end of the market, as slaughter plant buyers and associated dealers exit.
This shift down in demand - in the efficient second price auction markets that are by far the largest source of horses to slaughter - will unambiguously reduce equilibrium prices, thereby increasing private ownership of auction-intermediated horses, and reducing private supply to those markets.
However, even better news is that this credible, permanent contraction in financial rewards to disposal of low-value horses through auctions will, assuming that breeders are rational decision-makers, reduce the incentive to produce such horses at all.
Over a period of time, such a reduction in supply at all prices will, by increasing scarcity in the American equine industry, raise equilibrium prices and - one would hope - the average quality of horses produced.
Natural results will be a substantial contraction in auction intermediated sales of horses and, ultimately, a higher value and higher quality horse market.
All of which leads me to wonder why the elimination of horse slaughter is so hotly debated at all, for reducing the excessive production of poor quality horses will presumably render the American equine much more "wantable".
In a very important sense, Dr Lenz is correct, however. The issues of his "unwanted horse" and the horse processed for meat cannot be separated.
In announcing its response to new EU restrictions to assure horsemeat safety, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has acknowledged what has (presumably) long been known. Phenylbutazone - or "bute" - an extremely common equine non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication, is a banned substance in horsemeat for human consumption.
Specifically, the CFIA classifies bute as a "veterinary drug not permitted for use in equines slaughtered for food", its residue causing permanent toxicity in horse meat, with no period of quarantine being able to eliminate that toxicity.
This public and socially responsible CFIA acknowledgement brings a new clarity to the "unwanted horse" debate.
After all, of Dr Lenz's "unwanted horses" - the old, the injured, the sick, the unmanageable, the incurably lame - how many have not had bute administered at some point in his or her life?
As one public example, a brief glance at the Daily Racing Form is sufficient to confirm that the vast majority of American racehorses, who are known to ship frequently to European Union-licensed plants in Canada and Mexico for slaughter and export to European diners, certainly have had bute administered. So let me suggest that Dr Lenz's "unwanted horse" be renamed "the toxic horse" - unwanted but not slaughtered, unwanted and slaughtered, unwanted and should be slaughtered, it matters not.
The flesh of "unwanted horses" is acknowledged to be toxic when consumed by humans. And who among the politicians, equine practitioners, and veterinarians lobbying to prevent a ban on the slaughter of American horses - in the name of equine welfare - would wish to be responsible for the deleterious impact for human welfare associated with promoting the slaughter of toxic horses?

Caroline Betts holds a PhD in economics. She is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Southern California. The views expressed in this article are her own, given in a personal capacity, and do not represent those of the university.

2/15/10

Thirty years ago, in the fall of 1978, when racing was more about sport and less about dollars, the great Hall of Fame trainer Charlie Whittingham brought the wonderful racehorse Exceller to New York in search of an Eclipse Award title. To do that he would need to defeat not one but two Triple Crown champions.

Born the year a horse named Secretariat put thoroughbred racing on the front covers of Time and Newsweek, Exceller, a son of Vaguely Noble from Bald Eagle’s mare, the champion Too Bald, shipped into Belmont Park after having won the San Juan Capistrano, Hollywood Invitational, Hollywood Gold Cup and, under a steadying 130 pounds, the Sunset Handicap, Grade 1 races all.

But the time had come to show the Eastern racing establishment what he could do by coming to the right coast for two races in which the five-year-old bay colt would take on Seattle Slew and Affirmed in the storied Woodward and Jockey Club Gold Cup Stakes.

In the five-horse Woodward, the speed of Seattle Slew was simply too dominating. Slew, always taking the lead from the start, set realistic fractions shadowed by Exceller throughout, but 10 furlongs in 2:00-flat was simply too much speed to overcome. Slew won by four lengths comfortably.

However, Whittingham figured that the Jockey Club’s mile and a half would be a great equalizer, and that the addition of the speedy Affirmed to keep Slew honest, would level the playing field.

As expected, Seattle Slew took the lead at the start of the 1978 Gold Cup but was pressed through wild early fractions by Affirmed, a run-off beneath jockey Steve Cauthen whose saddled had slipped. Cauthen was fighting to maintain control, adding a sense of drama and danger to a race that didn’t need either.

Calling fractions of :45 1/5 and 1:09 2/5 going a mile and a half punishing doesn’t begin to tell the tale. While this suicidal pace was on, and having little choice, the great Shoemaker bided his time on Exceller, at one point 22 lengths behind the leader, perhaps even farther back between calls.

Approaching Belmont’s sweeping far turn, Shoemaker made his move and Exceller cut into Seattle Slew’s lead with every stride. In a little over two furlongs, Slew’s advantage had evaporated. Exceller took a half length lead as the duo straightened away into the long Belmont straight.

Tiring from his unexpectedly maniacal duel with Affirmed, Seattle Slew drifted out in the final furlong but, incredibly, began to re-rally, bringing everyone who wasn’t already standing to their feet. Slew was so wide that no one in the building had a clue who had won the race and, after an interminable delay, it was official, Exceller by a nose.

In defeat Triple Crown champion Seattle Slew had run the race of his life, becoming an even bigger star by erasing any lingering doubts as to his true greatness. Exceller, the courageous winner of this celebrated marathon in a worthy 2:27 1/5 at sloppy Belmont Park, had become the back-story, a footnote to Jockey Club Gold Cup history. To view the race in it's entirety, click here.

Considering that Exceller eventually would retire as one of the sport’s first equine millionaires with earnings of almost $1.7 million, winning nearly half his 33 lifetime starts, he wasn’t a very lucky individual.

Indeed, Exceller never would win a major championship and retired after finishing third in his career finale, the G1 Century Handicap, in the April following his Gold Cup triumph. But who could have known that his troubles were only beginning.

* * *

Thirty years later, in May of this year, the air was thick with an uneasy sense coming from the podium. James J. Hickey, Jr., President of the American Horse Council, was addressing the august body of equine lawyers and journalists assembled at the University of Kentucky Equine Law Seminar in Lexington.

The participants, over 250 industry professionals, sat cheek-to-jowl patiently awaiting Hickey’s take on a number of concerns facing the industry and the AHC’s role in it. Reading from a text, he spent about 25 minutes talking about the law, lobbying, and loopholes, until a solitary questioner rose his hand.

“What is the American Horse Council’s stand on horse slaughter?”

After a lengthy pause, Hickey stated flatly that the American Horse Council is neutral on the subject. He explained it had to be that way because the organization’s members came down on both sides of the issue. Then, without hesitation or further explanation, Hickey hastily thanked his audience for their attention and the program was over.

The American Horse Council is one of the more visible organizations representing all groups whose lives are tethered to horses, whether those horses be Standardbreds, Quarter Horses, Paints or the Thoroughbred, the most visible of all breeds. On balance, the AHC does endeavor to be a force for positive change.

Another organization professing to have the welfare of horses to justify their existence is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Known as PETA, they surface opportunistically and while the whole world is watching, this year outside the gates of Pimlico and Belmont Park following the tragic accident that befell the filly Eight Belles, who broke down while pulling up after finishing second in Big Brown’s Kentucky Derby.

Horse slaughter, too, is a huge problem for racing and the sport is under attack from overenthusiastic groups like PETA. PETA’s modus operandi is to encourage well meaning converts to carry signs and speak out helter skelter against the racing industry while depending on these zealots for their existence. But while purporting to save animals, PETA has a vested economic interest in maintaining the status quo. According to its 2006 tax return, PETA raised nearly $30 million, their officers receiving $5 million in compensation.

Worse is the official PETA policy that contradicts the marketing of its brand image to the public, namely the killing of feral stray dogs and cats. PETA believes and convinces its members that these creatures are better off dead at the hand of a PETA official than in the homes of a new owner that “would abuse the animal” anyway, or worse. It‘s a practice they don‘t openly advertise.

PETA, whose executive director earns $500,000 annually, does important work and makes a positive difference but remains a thorn in the side of the horse racing industry. Their stated mission is to shut down Thoroughbred racing and the industry would do well not to underestimate PETA’s determination and ability to sway the American public.

Equicide, defined here as the slaughter of equines for money, is still practiced in this country on a de facto basis. While the slaughter of horses has been banned since 2007, the practice is enabled by people who sell their unwanted horses to the killers who then van them across the border to Canadian and Mexican slaughterhouses.

Every day, horses, burros and donkeys are crammed into trucks, hauled across the border where they’re shot in the face--stunned a “penetrating captive bolt”-- until their necks are slit while their hearts still beat. They then are strung up by one hoof until they bleed out.

The cruel practice of shipping American equines to foreign countries to be butchered is a problem that 70 percent of Americans believe is wrong and want abolished. “Our 10.5 million members, that’s one out of every 30 Americans, demand this practice be stopped. They want to see the slaughter end,” said Nancy Perry, Vice President of Government Affairs, Humane Society of the United States.

Horses are slaughtered for many reasons all coming down to the same thing: money. First to benefit are middlemen who buy the unwanted horses at auction and arrange for them shipped to foreign countries where they’re butchered for eventual sale. Horse meat sells for $20 a pound in France. A good draft horse can bring a stunning price because there’s a lot more meat on their bones. Horses are being punished for the crime of being alive at the wrong time, in the wrong place.

Last year, 301 Paint horses were sold to killer-buyers in a rigged auction at Stephenville, Texas. “Rigged” auctions allow only killer-buyer bidders into the building. Hearing about the incident and learning that 12 more Paints were to be sold the following day, country music legend Willie Nelson attended the auction and adopted the 12 horses on the spot, retiring them to his Texas farm.

“The killers are buying more horses now than when the plants in the U.S. were open,” Nelson told HRI. “My family and I have been working with the Animal Welfare Institute to outlaw the practice of horse slaughter for the last seven years. But every five minutes we fail to act, an American horse is slaughtered in Mexico or Canada.”

One such place is the city-owned slaughterhouse in Juarez, Mexico, literally a stone’s throw from El Paso, Texas, making the job of killer-buyers easier. “The continued legality of killer-buyers is a predatory, opportunistic and foreign-driven business that we should not allow to operate on our soil,” Perry added.

Written by Marion Altieri
Edited by: John Pricci

Part 2 of HORSE SLAUGHTER: Ending the Madness of Equicide

By Marion Altieri

The mantra “unwanted horses” is the rallying cry for pro-slaughter advocates. This group believes that slaughtering unwanted horses is more humane than if the horses were neglected or abandoned, allowed to die a slow death. It’s a resolution that conveniently ignores the humane component.

Russell Williams, vice president of Hanover Shoe Farms, the largest and most prestigious Standardbred farm in the United States, emphasizes that as long as slaughter is available, alternatives won’t be considered, that it’s nothing more than death made an easy first option for owners and breeders looking to shun their responsibility. “We’ve got to keep in mind that [breeding and racing] brings with it an obligation to properly handle the unwanted horses we end up with. If we don’t eliminate slaughter, we’ll never come to grips with proper ways to solve that problem. It’s expensive, and it’s hard, but it’s got to be done.”

Jackson Knowlton, managing partner of the Sackatoga Stables group that owns 2003 Kentucky Derby champion Funny Cide and a member of the New York State Task Force on Retired Racehorses, places the responsibility of equine welfare squarely in his own lap and those of his peers. “From an owner’s perspective, we all have a responsibility to assure that the horses we race have a happy and healthy retirement. I believe that all owners should share in the financial responsibility to assure that this becomes a reality.”

The most humane solution is not necessarily an easy decision, however, even if it’s the only option available. Hall of Fame trainer Nick Zito and his wife Kim have been active slaughter abolitionists for years. “The main thing is that this problem has been going on for too long; we’ve been aware for a very long time now. ‘What do you do with these horses?’ If you must, and only absolutely must, you euthanize them. Look, we all know the humane thing to do, and we have to do it. You don’t send horses to be slaughtered.”

In addition to making horsemen responsible for the privilege of ownership, there are two other possible ways to address the problem of unwanted horses. The first is staggeringly simple: Don’t make so many of them. Last year alone, 161,313 new foals hit the ground: 9,133 Standardbreds, 34,350 Thoroughbreds, and an astounding 117,830 Quarter Horses.

According to the American Quarter Horse Association web-site, there are over three million Quarter Horses in the U. S. alone. The AQHA is funded via the process of registering American Quarter Horse foals. These staggering numbers are made possible through artificial insemination. One good stallion can be responsible for 5,000 foals a year, a conservative estimate say some.

If a Quarter Horse doesn’t have the talent to earn his way, becomes ill, or just doesn‘t have the physical tools, the slaughter option makes it easy. It’s not difficult to understand why the AQHA is a vocal advocate for horse slaughter. Last year, 76,000 horses were slaughtered according to the Humane Society’s Perry, who added that slaughterhouses are on track to butcher 100,000 horses in 2008.

It’s encouraging that not all Quarter Horse owners feel the same way about slaughter as policy. “How could I not be opposed to this appalling cruelty,” asked Steven Long, an owner of retired Quarter Horses and author/editor of the publication “Texas Horse Talk.” “These are the creatures that built America. The agribusiness industry views them as a commodity. I have many cowboy friends, and I love them, but they’re just wrong. Horse slaughter must end now.”

Until the enabling of slaughter is abolished in this country, there are other options. Horses can have a career that doesn’t involve beating other horses to a finish post. The U.S. Department of Agriculture sent a questionnaire to horse owners seeking to learn how horses can have a second career. “There’s such a big area but it’s expensive,” said Thoroughbred breeder-owner Frank Maner of Quiet Oak Farm in upstate New York. “There’s so many horses being sold who never race. We need a middleman, an organization to find new owners, to broker [an exchange].”

There are many worthy retirement organizations doing important work, such as the Exceller Fund, named for the 1978 Gold Cup hero. Trainer Gary Contessa is the new president of the Exceller Fund, a non-profit organization that transitions former racehorses into new careers. “My whole life has been built around racehorses. I see this as an opportunity to give even more back to these wonderful animals,” said last year’s record-setting trainer on the New York circuit.

“I have numerous retired Thoroughbreds at my farm in upstate New York and have b een a major supporter of the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation and Equine Advocates. But I want to do more. My primary focus will be in raising awareness and funds for the continuing care of horses,” Contessa said when named the organization’s president last month.

The best hope for insuring that the slaughter of American horses stops is H.R. 6598, the Conyers-Burton Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008 introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The bill’s passage, approved by voice vote in committee Tuesday night, would prohibit the sale and transport of horses to foreign countries for slaughter and eventual human consumption. While the bill has heightened awareness in the halls of power, it still needs public support.

“As a Representative of one of the premiere Thoroughbred racetracks in the U.S., Saratoga Race Course, I find it imperative that we pass this commonsense piece of legislation,” said Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York). Sandy Treadwell, her Republican counterpart, who’s running for Congress, failed to return repeated phone calls seeking comment.

“H.R. 6598 is the best chance we’ve had in years to pass this legislation,” affirmed Willie Nelson. “Call your representatives today and ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 6598. Tell them their decision should be an easy one.” “Those who are trying to stop this are responsible for horse’s deaths,” added Perry. “The bill’s passage is urgent.”

Like most Thoroughbred horsemen, the august Jockey Club, the sport’s registrar, wants equicide abolished. “The Jockey Club is opposed to the slaughter or processing of Thoroughbreds for consumption by humans or animals. This includes the sale and/or transportation of Thoroughbreds for slaughter or processing for consumption by humans or animals. The Jockey Club maintains its long-standing commitment to the care and welfare of Thoroughbreds and believes that Thoroughbreds should at all times be treated humanely and with dignity,” said Bob Curran, Jockey Club vice president of Corporate Communications.

The great Exceller, winner of the Jockey Club Gold Cup run 30 years ago this weekend, never did win a formal championship. And so, after running the race of his life, defeating two Triple Crown champions in the process, Exceller entered stud service at Gainesway Farm in Kentucky. But not long after that he fell out of favor. Foreign interests had begun their assault on the American stud book. Speed had become the commodity of choice, more important than heart or stoutness or versatility or, as some might argue, ultimately, class.

So off Exceller went to Sweden, sold to a bre eder named Gote Ostlund. According to the Exceller Fund web-site, and contrary to rumor, the horse was not infertile. Indeed, he covered more than 40 mares in his final season at stud in Sweden. But Ostlund had made some bad business decisions, went bankrupt, and demanded that Exceller be slaughtered.

In 1997, Exceller, the same year he was nominated for--and would eventually gain--admission into the Racing Hall of Fame in Saratoga Springs, this extraordinary horse found himself in a Swedish slaughterhouse, thousands of miles from the dirt and grass upon which he raced and grazed and achieved greatness, and from the fans who admired and loved him, Exceller was murdered for no good reason.

Gandhi said that a society is judged by its treatment of its weakest members. The Bible teaches people to “rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.” And, as Edmund Burke reminds us, all’s that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Going forward, as racing fights for its financial and aesthetic survival, pressured from without and within, the horse industry might do well to recall the cautionary words of Martin Niemoller on the subject of the inactions of the past and what it might portend for the future. To wit:

“When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.”

2/9/10

I did vote for you. I was intrigued by your call for "change". You signaled a dramatic new course, one of openness and inclusion. Certainly I applauded your choice of Joe Biden as vice president, a staunch animal welfare advocate.

The promises

During the 2008 campaign you said, "Federal policy towards animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of our environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect.... I have consistently been a champion of animal-friendly legislation and policy and would continue to be so once elected." You announced that you had co-sponsored legislation to stop the sale for slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. During the election you signed on as co-sponsor to the bill to ban horse slaughter for human consumption. When asked specifically during the campaign, "Will you support legislation ...to institute a permanent ban on horse slaughter and exports of horses for human consumption", you gave an unqualified "Yes". (HSLF questionnaire)

Today, in January, 2010, you are presiding over one of the deadliest, most cruel and unnecessary government roundups of wild horses ever documented by BLM.

As of this writing, more than 2 dozen horses have been killed by helicopters used by your administration to run them off their legally protected herd areas and corral them in long term holding pens. The hooves of two little foals have literally torn off as they ran for their lives from the BLM. BLM's Richard Sanford DVM reported on one, "Multiple hoof sloughs were noted and the foal was euthanized for humane reasons. The cause of these hoof abscesses/sloughs was most likely hoof trauma from the gather operations."

Several mares have also aborted spontaneously or miscarried. This after being forced to run miles from a helicopter and trapped in a corral, terrified, traumatized and forever separated from their herds, their families. A long time BLM official whom you promoted to the job of Assistant Director for Renewable Resources and Planning in the BLM, Edwin Roberson, claims the spontaneous abortions are "the result of the poor condition of many of the older mares and ... directly related to lack of forage on the range." Except that they weren't miscarrying on the range and didn't do so until after they were forced to run hundreds of miles, extremely afraid, and lost their families and freedom forever. Your administration would have us believe that the mares all miscarried in the past few days because of years of eating the forage on the range and it had nothing to do with the severe trauma of the roundup they had just endured?

Wow, your words about respecting animals as co-inhabitants and protecting them in their habitat really ring hollow, don't they? Not to mention I do not see that your administration has lifted a finger, let alone "championed", for "animal-friendly legislation and policy" as promised.

Thousands of citizens have gathered at dozens of ongoing protests of

BLM's policy of extermination towards our wild horses and burros. Tens and even hundreds of thousands more have written and called your administration and Congress, asking you for a moratorium on wild horses and burro roundups, an evaluation and change in policy, like the one you promised. But you seem to have dug in, your attitude reminiscent of President Richard Nixon, refusing even to acknowledge the outcry, let alone the cruelty.

Taxpayer money - the budgets

Calico is only the latest of the roundups of wild horses that have actually accelerated during your administration. In FY 2008, the cost of rounding up and holding these animals was approximately 81.3% of the $36,201,000 budget for the total wild horse and burro program. The BLM wild horse adoption program consumed another 13% of the total budget, leaving a meager 5.8% for monitoring and managing herd areas, census, and compliance inspections. (BLM report - 2010 Budget Justification)

The 2009 budget was $40,613,000 with the increase used for more roundups and holding costs. (BLM report - 2010 Budget Justification)

Then you proposed for FY 2010 a substantial increase in the budget for the wild horses and burros program for a total of $67,486,000 with the entire additional $26, 873,000 to be used for rounding up 12,000 horses and holding what will be a total of about 40,000 horses in pens. (BLM report - 2010 Budget Justification)

Now for FY 2011 you have requested an additional $12 million apparently to defray the costs of holding wild horses and burros in corrals and long term holding facilities.

How do you explain to laid off workers, unemployed fathers and mothers, struggling businesses, and taxpayers shouldering substantial government debt in this worst of economic times, why you want to continue, even step up, round ups of nearly all of the wild horses and burros and put them in costly holding facilities?

What's next - deer, elk, squirrels, rabbits, raccoons?

You appointed Ken Salazar to be the Dept. of Interior Secretary. Sec'y. Salazar supports horse slaughter; he is an avid supporter of taxpayer subsidies of livestock grazing on public lands which BLM has given priority. It has been said that grazing livestock on public lands is a "$132 million loss to the American taxpayer each year and independent economists have estimated the true cost at between $500 million and $1 billion dollars a year." Another burden for the taxpayers.

Sec'y. Salazar also supports oil and gas development so this appointment probably made Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) happy. He conspired with then Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) in 2004 to legalize slaughter of wild horses and burros and has through special laws and otherwise, facilitated removals of large numbers of these animals from lands in Nevada his contributors want for development, oil and gas drilling and production, mining, recreation and the like. The cattle and even sheep would be allowed to stay and their numbers increased. Whatever is profitable at the expense of the American people's public lands.

Horse slaughter

Needless to say, since your election, you've not said a word about supporting legislation to ban horse slaughter. I guess if you were planning to keep that promise, you would not have appointed Ken Salazar or Bob Abbey. Your BLM Director, Bob Abbey, is a long time BLM employee who as director of the Nevada BLM office signed off on numerous wild horse and burro roundups and sales for slaughter.

Mr. President, the issue is not one of balancing interests, the wild horses and burros, the ranchers, energy development. The issues are integrity, compliance with our laws, and humane treatment of animals.

Sec'y. Salazar has disseminated the outline of a plan, really a culmination of Bush era BLM meetings, that will basically mean moving wild horses and burros to pastures, even feedlots in the Midwest and East, from herd areas and ranges in the west where they are supposed to be "free roaming", managed at the "minimal feasible level" and protected from "capture", "harassment" and "death".

Not only is such a plan contrary to the promise of the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act, 16 USC §1331 et seq., Nena Winand, DVM, has advised such a move makes no sense because taking horses from their native habitat to pastures in the Midwest or East with different nutrients is likely to cause them to suffer metabolic syndrome. This is one reason why there is an effort to protect "animals and their habitat", recognize "their rightful place as co-habitants" of the earth. (Do you remember that you said that?)

But this, like the explanations for the miscarrying mares, is typical of the lack of science underlying BLM's management of the wild horses and burros. Secy Salazar has asserted as his premise for this plan that exploding numbers of wild horses are responsible for the degradation of the range and must be removed. He adds that this is for the horses and burros' own good because they are also starving. Secy Salazar has asserted this over and over as if repeating it will make it true.

President Obama, your administration has used newspapers and its own websites to try to convince the American people of this. One blogger would remind that it is illegal to use appropriated funds to hire publicity experts. 5 U.S.C. 3107 "Appropriations law "publicity and propaganda" clauses restrict the use of funds for puffery of an agency, purely partisan communications, and covert propaganda." BLM fails to include "Letters in Opposition" to the agency's action, and also does not in its "News Releases and Editorials" any news reports or editorials critical of the agency's actions.

The truth

In 1990 the GAO found the range was in the best condition it had been in during the past century. The GAO found any degradation was the result of livestock grazing and suggested removal of cattle, not wild horses and burros. The removal of wild horses at that time was something done largely to appease ranchers.

Since 2001, however, over 74,000 wild horses and burros have removed from the range, and now one year after you took office and stepped up the Bush era removals, there are almost more wild horses in holding facilities than roaming free. As of October, 2009, BLM was holding 32,000 animals in holding facilities. More now since the roundup of the Calico horses that began in late December, 2009.

The truth is there are fewer free roaming wild horses now than in 1974. Wild horses make up only .5% of grazing animals on public lands; they are outnumbered by cattle at least 200 to 1. The BLM manages more than 256 million acres of public lands. Cattle grazing is allowed on 160 million acres, while wild horses are restricted to 26.6 million acres of land that is shared with cattle.

Take as an example the BLM's zeroing out or eliminating 12 herds in Lincoln and Nye Counties in Nevada in September, 2009. BLM estimated there were 1,357.43 acres per wild horse in one herd area, about 350 horses; and 3,377.38 acres per horse in another herd area, about 270 horses. The BLM zeroed out all of these herd areas, known as the Seaman including Golden Gate, and White River Herd Areas and the Caliente Herd Area. Not one wild horse will be allowed to live anywhere in these herd areas despite that in 1971 they were designated for the wild horses and burros.

In the Calico Mt. Complex, site of the current roundup of 90% of the estimated 3,100 horses living there, there are approximately 175 acres for each horse.

In 2007 BLM said there were 700 horses there and in 2008, there were said to be so few horses that BLM decided not to monitor them further. BLM then authorized what amounted to a 300% increase in cattle in one allotment of this area. Just a few months later in 2008 BLM decided the numbers of horses in this area had exploded and were degrading the range. In 2009 BLM employees responsible for monitoring the wild horses and burros in this area testified they were "surprised" to hear about an exploding population of wild horses in the Calico herd management areas, that they believed the range could adequately support the number of wild horses. The idea seems to be to exaggerate the number of wild horses to justify removal of more and more of them until there are no more?

BLM would like everyone to believe the agency is just reallybad at counting wild horses. According to Cindy MacDonald at American Herds, BLM is also claiming "hundreds and hundreds of wild horses moved outside the [herd management areas] when the choppers arrived in 2004-2005 - but after the choppers left, the mustangs snuck back inside", thus accounting for the population increases.

It is highly questionable that these horses, however many there are, should have been declared "excess", meaning BLM determines there are too many for the range to support and they must then be removed under the WFRHBA. BLM specialists tasked with monitoring wild horses in this area didn't seem to think as of the spring, 2009, there was any reason to remove wild horses; these specialists actually testified that the range could support the numbers of wild horses.

Also, the environmental assessment for the Calico removal was a sham. Anyone could see very dated studies of the range condition were used. And, your administration would have the public believe that wild horses too few to bother monitoring as of 2008 somehow destroyed the range but thousands of cattle and oil and gas development had nothing to do with it? For more....

Just like for the Pryor Mountain, Caliente and Seamen/White River roundups in 2009 where BLM claimed without any current assessment or real proof that the range was degraded because of the horses and never mentioned the tens or even hundreds of thousands of cattle and even sheep also occupying those areas that trample the land and foul the water.

In all of those cases, wildlife ecologists and other witnesses offered substantial proof there was no real evidence of degradation of the range and a dwindling number of horses, not an overpopulation. Regardless, rounding up wildlife and putting them in holding facilities is hardly an ecologically sound method of conservation or preservation.

What about the law?

And what of the law, the requirement that the BLM "shall maintain a current inventory of wild free-roaming horses and burros... to... make determinations as to whether and where an overpopulation exists and whether action should be taken to remove excess animals; determine appropriate management levels [AMLs] of wild free-roaming horses and burros on these areas of the public lands" §1333(b)?

Does it matter at all that the BLM's wildly fluctuating census, obviously made up, and unsubstantiated or outdated claims of "range degradation" violate the law?

By the way, Mr. President, we have seen no evidence of starving horses. Instead, we have seen horses killed, injured and terrified by helicopters BLM uses to run them down and corral them, their families destroyed, their anguish, suffering and fear.

How do you and your DOI and BLM simply ignore the mandate against inhumane treatment of wild horses under the WFRHBA?

Why have you not stopped your administration's disregard of the law, called for the Justice Dept. to investigate and prosecute criminal violations of WFRHBA?

BLM has also basically thumbed its bureaucratic nose at the National Environmental Policy Act, The BLM is required by National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq., to prepare Environmental Assessments or EAs or, if indicated, Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), for any proposed changes to public lands that may have a significant environmental impact. The law directs the agency to identify environmental concerns, consider alternatives including no action at all and take a "hard look" at the problem and minimize significant environmental impact. A significant environmental impact includes actions that are likely to be highly controversial or have uncertain effects on the quality of our lives and that affect cultural and historical resources. 40 C.F.R. §1508.27(b).

These evaluations as well as land use plans are full of words but have little substance when it comes to stating why wild horses must be removed from their homes. They are all cookie cutter, cut and paste, blaming the wild horses and burros for unspecified "range degradation" without mention of thousands of livestock or other wild animals that share these areas.

BLM's plan for non-excess horses and presumably for healthy unadoptable excess horses is what Ginger Kathrens, founder of Cloud Foundation, has decried as "managing the wild horses to extinction". Secy Salazar's plan, again, not the "change" we were promised, calls for aggressive sterilization and creation of herds that are all geldings or all mares or not in sufficient gender ratios or numbers to maintain genetic viability. Those left after these Frankenstein-like machinations will be placed in those Midwest or East Coast pastures. Forget pastures. The BLM team thought feedlots would be sufficient.

How is that maintaining free roaming behavior as required by WFRHBA? Even BLM agrees herd behavior would be "out the window".

It is evident that BLM's preference for the horses it has captured is to kill them or send them to slaughter. Is that really the long term plan for these horses? During the Calico roundup, for example, no one seems to be keeping track of the horses, many have not been freeze branded as required by law. The BLM is strictly controlling access by the public, treating us as if we are terrorists instead of citizens trying to protect our animals and uphold the laws we passed to protect them.

During its Bush era discussions BLM considered ways to keep the public away from round ups and the killing and sales of healthy horses and burros and planned to brand protests as "eco-terrorism". This was all to be done in secret. Unless you step up and stop this rogue agency, Mr. President, it looks like BLM's plan may succeed.

BLM, for example, has long ignored the limitations on the "multiple use" concept under the WFRHBA and Federal Lands Policy Management Act. BLM issued a regulation that effectively rewrites WFRHBA to say the "objectives of these regulations are management of wild horses and burros as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands under the principle of multiple use". 43 CFR § 4700.0-2 Yet, the WFRHBA says only that wild horses and burros "are to be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands". 16 U.S.C. §1331.

WFRHBA mandates "[a]ll management activities shall be at the minimal feasible level". 16 U.S.C. §1333 BLM's regulation says "[m]anagement shall be at the minimum level necessary to attain the objectives identified in approved land use plans and herd management area plans." 43 CFR 4710.4. Two very different laws.

FLPMA makes clear that the protections under WFRHBA take precedence. FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1732 (a) Yet, despite this, BLM has issued a regulation that provides "[w]ild horses and burros shall be considered comparably with other resource values in the formulation of land use plans." 43 C.F.R. §4700.0-6(b).

Indeed, BLM has not managed herd areas as required by WFRHBA only to "maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands" and "protect the natural ecological balance of all wildlife species which inhabit such lands, particularly endangered wildlife species", or to "protect the range from the deterioration associated with overpopulation". BLM has also ignored the law requiring ranges to be "devoted principally" to use by wild horses/burros. Instead, BLM has used a "multiple use" approach under which the wild horses are generally treated as nuisances to be removed from their own herd areas and ranges.

The BLM has authorized itself to divide herd areas into "herd management areas", something not authorized by WFRHBA. 43 CFR 4710.3-1. In this way, with no statutory authority at all, BLM has limited wild horses and burros' access to thousands of acres that were historically their herd areas. This is done without thought about the horses' seasonal migration patterns or available resources. The BLM then removes wild horses and burros from the artificially created "herd management areas" on the basis there is insufficient forage, water or habitat! BLM also targets them for removal if they cross the artificial boundaries into their original herd areas. The creation of herd management areas has resulted in the loss of more than 20 million acres of historical herd areas. For more.....

What you can do, Mr. President

Mr. President, you can stop the roundups, the cruelty, and you can do it now. Put a moratorium on the roundups, order the Justice Dept to investigate BLM's wild horse and burro program and work with Congress and the public to determine the best course for conserving these animals in their habitat and at the same time meeting the country's energy needs.

What we can do

1. There have been a number of protests of BLM's actions in rounding up and removing these horses, and more are scheduled to take place. Join one of the protests now scheduled or plan your own!

Follow your email with a phone call to the White House (both numbers) to appeal to the President to halt the BLM's cruel Calico and other wild horse roundups.

Phone: 202-456-1111 or 202-456-9000; Switchboard: 202-456-1414

Forward this message to five friends and family and ask that they take a couple of minutes to help the horses - every public comment and phone call counts. You can help us increase the number of active wild horse advocates.

Please write or call your U.S. representative and senatorsand urge them to join in this effort to put in place a moratorium to stop the gathers, the roundups and removals pending Congressional action on the future management of the wild horses and burros. Also, ask your representative and senators to hold a hearing on the course of the wild horses and burros program.

Urge your representative and senators to vote for de-funding of the roundups for FY 2011.

WASHINGTON - With a focus on renewable energy development, climate change adaptation, and other key priorities, President Obama, this week, requested $1.1 billion in appropriations for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management in Fiscal Year 2011. This represents an $8.0 million increase from the BLM’s FY 2010 enacted funding level. The President’s request reflects his continuing commitment to be prudent with taxpayer dollars while setting priorities for spending.
“Today’s budget proposal will advance the BLM’s mission of protecting the land’s resources while facilitating environmentally sound use of America’s public lands,” said BLM Director Bob Abbey. “Under this proposal, we can and will meet the challenges facing our agency in today’s fast-growing West.” Under the President’s proposed budget, the BLM will focus on the following priorities:

New Energy Frontier
The New Energy Frontier initiative recognizes the value of environmentally sound, scientifically grounded development of both renewable and conventional energy resources on the Nation’s public lands. To encourage and facilitate renewable energy development, the President’s FY 2011 BLM budget proposes a $3.0 million increase that builds on the $16.1 million increase for renewable energy provided in FY 2010. The funds would be used to complete environmental studies for solar energy projects in Nevada and potential wind energy zones in Oregon and Nevada. In the conventional energy program, the BLM will focus on implementing oil and gas leasing reforms put forward by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar while placing continued emphasis on oil and gas inspections, environmental enforcement, and production monitoring activities. The budget includes a $2.0 million increase in BLM’s Soil, Water, and Air Management program for air quality monitoring that will be targeted to areas with current or anticipated intensive oil and gas development to help BLM ensure that the energy development complies with environmental requirements and minimizes or addresses potential litigation issues.
The Budget maintains BLM’s oil and gas management program capacity at current levels, with a $3.0 million decrease to reflect the completion of specific Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) studies. In addition, the Budget proposes new fees – estimated to generated $10 million annually – to help offset the cost of BLM’s oil and gas inspection and enforcement activities.

Climate Change Adaptation
The Secretary’s Climate Change Adaptation initiative recognizes the need to understand the condition of BLM-managed landscapes at a broad level; identify potential impacts from climate change; and develop and implement strategies to help native plant and animal communities adapt to climate change. These efforts are coordinated with other Interior bureaus and other partners through a network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. The President’s proposed FY 2011 BLM budget includes a $2.5 million increase in support of the Climate Change Adaptation initiative, in addition to the $15.0 million increase the Bureau received in 2010.

Treasured Landscapes
The Treasured Landscapes initiative recognizes the need to take a landscape-scale approach to conservation. Through this initiative, the BLM is dedicated to preserving species and habitat; conserving and restoring rivers and riparian areas; and protecting lands of historical and cultural significance.
The FY 2011 BLM budget request makes a major contribution to the Treasured Landscapes initiative with a proposed $13.1 million increase for high-priority land acquisition projects, for a total of $37.8 million for high-priority line-item projects. The total of $37.8 million will add Federal protection to 25,679 acres of lands with key natural and cultural resources.

Youth in Natural Resources
The Youth in Natural Resources initiative recognizes the value of encouraging young people to experience the myriad resources offered by the Nation’s public lands and to engage and connect with the land around them. In FY 2010, the BLM received an increase of $5 million to support programs and partnerships that engage youth in natural resource management; encourage young people and their families to visit, explore, and learn about the public lands; and promote stewardship, conservation, and public service. In FY 2011, the BLM will continue to fund these programs and partnerships, as well as direct $1.0 million in base funding to support a new public-private partnership program with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Other Funding: the National Wild Horse and Burro Program

Putting the BLM’s wild horse and burro program on a sustainable track is one of Secretary Salazar’s top priorities. Today the BLM finds itself in the position of needing to gather thousands of wild horses from overpopulated herds on Western public rangelands at a time when public demand for adoptable horses has declined. This has left more than 34,000 wild horses and burros in holding facilities that cost approximately $35 million to operate out of a FY 2010 wild horse budget of $64 million.

Taking note of the BLM’s holding costs and recognizing the agency’s limited management options concerning unadoptable horses, the Government Accountability Office issued a report in October 2008 that found the Bureau to be at a “critical crossroads.” In response to this situation, Secretary Salazar announced on Oct. 7, 2009, a new plan to put the BLM’s wild horse and burro program on a sustainable track. The strategy emphasizes a combination of aggressive fertility control and the relocation of wild horses to new preserves in the Midwest or Eastern portions of the United States as a means to accelerate the attainment of appropriate management population levels. To advance the Secretary’s efforts toward program sustainability, the President’s FY 2011 BLM budget proposal requests $75.7 million for the wild horse and burro program, a $12 million increase over the FY 2010 level of $64 million. The budget proposal makes a separate, but related land-acquisition funding request of $42.5 million for the purchase of land for one wild horse preserve.

Budget Decreases
The 2011 budget funds Administration priorities and reduces funding for lower-priority programs, projects, and activities. Included is a reduction of $8.2 million for resource management planning; a $5.0 million reduction in the Oregon and California Lands Management program; a $13.0 million reduction in the Alaska land conveyance program; elimination of the $9.5 million Challenge Cost Share program; a reduction of $600,000 by discontinuing two congressional earmarks in the Management of Lands and Resources account; a total of $3.8 million in smaller base funding reductions in several programs; management efficiencies totaling $10.6 million; and a reduction in the construction program of $5.0 million.

2/2/10

HOUSTON, (Horseback) - On January 22, 2010 I was given a tour of the Fallon holding facility after my observation days (Calico gather) had been cancelled by weather twice.

I had witnessed the gather on January 16, and met Gene Seidlitz (Winnemucca district manager) and Heather Emmons, both of the Bureau of Land Management. Both appeared to be very willing to accommodate and provide access in as transparent a manner as possible Gene spoke to me many times about the concept of finding areas for dialogue and co-operation. I had hoped to write an article based on that concept.

On January 22, Seidlitz and Lisa Ross, BLM public relations coordinator for Calico gather met me at the agency’s Fallon facility. John Neill is acting BLM manager at Fallon. I was given free access to photograph and ask questions. I was also allowed to videotape the “hospital” facility at Fallon. I soon saw a row of small pens near the entrance to the facility next to the area being built to process horses. The plywood for windbreaks was stacked but not installed.

The pens held mostly foals and a few mares. Each horse I saw demonstrated some form of lameness. Many had bandages on their legs. Of particular concern was a foal that would not rise when approached.. His eyes were glassy.

Over the next few days I made several attempts to gain information about that foal. I sent e-mails to Gene, Lisa, and John. I was told the foal was up the very next day and doing well. Information I found hard to believe because I did not think he would even make it through the night. I requested a vet report and was told I would have it as soon as one was available. I requested that the foal be released to me and I would facilitate his placement into a facility that could properly care for him. The request was denied, the BLM saying it was not needed.

I named him “Hope Springs Eternal.” I began to make inquiries to find a facility to bring him to. He would have a home.

Several more conversations with John Neill continued to assure me the foal was fine. John said he was busy and if I did not get the vet report to please call him again.

I called today. I was told the vet report is online. It’s not. He was euthanized Saturday because his hooves had begun to slough.

My emotions are many:

So much for a timely exchange of information. So much for the concept that the “guys on the ground” are any different than the guys in DC, something they want you to believe. So much for the idea that co-operation toward problem solving with the best interests of the horses at its heart will ever be a reality. So much for “ Hope Springs Eternal.”

The baby I saw on January 22 was in incredible pain to the point that, as a wild animal, he could hardly lift his head as a strange human, a potential predator, approached. All the others rose and limped away. This baby languished in that facility with no windbreak in agony. A baby that had a chance if the humans involved could have attempted to create an opportunity to work together. Releasing that foal would have cost the BLM nothing… and maybe created the sensation that somewhere in this madness a spirit of humanity could overcome this battle of obstinate adherence to outdated bureaucratic protocol. I had “Hope.”

Little spirit you are now free of this administration’s unwillingness to recognize your worth. “Hope Springs Eternal,” rest in peace. You are loved.

Introduction

Horse slaughter has become a hotly contested issue in the United States in the past year. A large number of articles have appeared in the print media claiming that the closings of the three US based horse slaughter plants, all of which were foreign owned, in 2007 caused crisis levels of horse abuse and neglect and even wide scale abandonment of horses. None of these articles, however, cites any evidence for these claims beyond opinion or the occasional anecdotal story.
The purpose of this study is to document trends that have occurred in the wake of the closing of horse slaughter plants in the United States, to include the numbers of horses slaughtered and where they were slaughtered during the study period. This period was selected to include one year before the first closings to provide a baseline. The further goal was to establish what effect, if any, the closings of the US based plants might have had upon the frequency of abuse and neglect.

Background

All three of the foreign owned horse slaughter plants operating in the United States were closed under state laws during 2007. On January 19th, 2007, a federal appeals court overturned a lower court decision and ruled that a 1949 Texas law prohibiting the sale of horse meat was constitutional and valid. Although the two Texas plants continued to slaughter for some weeks under an appeal to the Supreme Court, they ceased operations in February when the airlines refused to ship horse meat to their customers in Europe.
The Texas plants had been responsible for more than half of all the horses slaughtered in the United States. Within weeks of their closings, the Cavel plant in Illinois increased their production to take advantage of the opportunity.
On May 24, an Illinois law prohibiting horse slaughter went into effect. After closing briefly, the Cavel plant appealed the decision and reopened under a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order).
At the federal level, an amendment to the 2006 Agriculture budget had been passed with the goal of closing all US horse slaughter plants by removing USDA funding for their required ante-mortem inspections. This amendment, which should have taken affect in March of 2006, was sidestepped by the USDA when it instituted a pay-for-inspections program.
The USDA program was the immediate subject of a law suit but the plan was allowed to continue under another TRO as the suit worked its way through the court system. The lower court decided against the USDA as did the appeals court. The result was that the Cavel plant closed briefly on several occasions before slaughter ended there on September 20th of 2007 under the new Illinois law.

Data sources

Several data sources were used for this study, including the Illinois Department of Agriculture, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Illinois Department of Agriculture (ILDA) and the online database http://www.pet-abuse.com/.

Limitations

There are several complicating factors in gathering and analyzing the data available. The most comprehensive data available is from the USDA and the CFIA. While these statistics give accurate numbers for horses slaughtered in the US last year, as well as exports by country, the US numbers are not differentiated between the three plants that were operating in January of 2007. These were the Cavel plant in Dekalb, Illinois, the BelTex plant in Fort Worth, Texas, and the Dallas Crown plant in Kaufman, Texas.
The biggest challenge is in obtaining and properly interpreting data on abuse and neglect. The first problem is that there is no way of knowing directly how many equines are being abused or neglected. The only metric available is the number of cases of abuse and neglect that are charged. Additionally, not all cases charged result in a guilty verdict, and the fact that a case does not result in such a verdict may be for reasons other than culpability.
Another issue in regard to charged cases is that they can take months or years to work their way through the court system. Therefore, this study uses each case on the date it was charged, whether or not it results in a guilty verdict, with the assumption that this metric will average out to be roughly proportional to true abuse levels over time. The study period is sufficiently brief that significant changes in law enforcement vigilance over its course are unlikely and the data should be valid for determining trends.
Moreover, very few states keep centralized data on equine abuse and neglect cases charged, and those that do keep it in a variety of formats. This study will look at one such state and analyze the correlation between its data and other metrics including slaughter rates and economic conditions for reasons that will become clear in the analysis.
The only centralized database that tracks all states is http://www.pet-abuse.com/. There are significant limitations to this data source and they will be discussed in a later section. Since these limitations could draw doubt as to their validity, a significant effort was made to verify and otherwise test the data extracted from the database. This will be discussed in more detail in the section dealing with that analysis.

Historical Perspective

Before looking at the data for 2006 and 2007, it is useful to gain a historical perspective on horse slaughter. While it is widely known that horse slaughter was at much higher levels in 1990 than in recent years, it is less well known that the United States has been exporting horses to slaughter in Mexico and Canada for this entire period, and to Japan since 1999.
Canadian and Mexican horse slaughter operations are quite different in nature. Canadian horse slaughter plants ship most of their product to Europe with a smaller fraction being consumed domestically. In Europe the meat is considered a delicacy and it brings relatively high prices. The plants tend to be similar to US plants because they must meet EU (European Union) approval.
Horse slaughter is more common in Mexico than in the US. There are two types of plants in Mexico; EU suppliers and domestic suppliers. There are two EU supplier plants located in central Mexico at the towns of Jerez and Fresnillo. In contrast there are dozens of smaller local plants throughout Mexico that are owned by the municipalities and that supply horsemeat for local consumption. Unlike the European consumers, the Mexican consumers view horsemeat as an inferior substitute for beef and it is often used as filler. Figure 1
Figure 1 shows the number of US equines slaughtered and exported for slaughter each year since 1989, as well as the countries to which they were exported. There are several notable features about this data. The most often referenced feature is the famous steep decline in total slaughter between 1990 and 2002. There were over ten slaughter plants in the United States in the late 1980s and only three by the 2000.
Anti-slaughter proponents have long found this decline their most unassailable argument against the claim that slaughter protects horses from abuse and neglect. They argue that since slaughter decreasing by 81% did not bring about a crisis of horse neglect, ending it would not have such consequences either. This argument has yet to be countered in a meaningful way by those who espouse the theory that only "unwanted" horses are slaughtered. The question remains, however, whether the decline occurred because of supply limitations, legislation, market demand or other causes.
The possibility that the decrease was caused by limitations of supply is easily discounted by horse population studies1. During this period the horse population of the US grew by 3 to 5% per year.
The effect of legislation on this decline is minimal but should be mentioned. Between 1989 and 1998 there were no legislative restrictions on the slaughter of horses in the United States. In 1998, after slaughter had already dropped from over 400,000 equines a year to under 100,000, California passed proposition 6 which banned the slaughter of horses and the export of horses from the state for purposes of slaughter. Since there were no slaughter plants operating in California at the time, there was no noticeable impact on the total slaughter in the United States. Despite many legislative initiatives, no other legislation affected slaughter until early 2007.
We can see from the export curves in Figure 1 that the overall decline was almost entirely driven by the decline in US slaughter and a parallel decline in exports to Canada. This parallel tracking phenomenon can be seen more clearly if we change the scale on the exports to Canada as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Exports to Canada tracked US slaughter during the precipitous decline of the 1990s in stark contrast to exports to Mexico. Since US and Canadian slaughter plants share the same customer base in Europe, this leads to the implication that slaughter and export to slaughter are driven primarily by market demand and not the supply of "unwanted" horses. If supply had been driving the market we would have seen similar patterns in exports to Mexico.
Finally, an Italian study6 of horse meat consumption confirms that it followed the same trend as US slaughter during that study period between 1995 and 2001. This further indicates that demand in Europe was likely the strongest determinant of US slaughter levels. Interestingly, this study will show that there may have been yet another component to the famous decline of the 90s.
The only other notable non-market influences on the reduction of slaughter were the burning of Cavel West in Redmond Oregon by arson on July 21st, 1997 and the burning of Cavel East in Dekalb Illinois by accidental causes on Easter Sunday of 2002. Cavel in Dekalb was rebuilt and was back in operation by the summer of 2004.
The burning of Cavel in Illinois came just as slaughter had ebbed and was beginning an upward trend that has continued to date. The relationship of abuse and neglect to slaughter during the period surrounding the burning of Cavel East was the subject of an earlier study2. Ironically, the burning of Cavel appears to have saved approximately 50,000 horses while we will see later that the closing of all of the US based plants in 2007 saved only about 22,000 horses from slaughter.
The other two features of interest in the graph of Figure 1 concern exports to Mexico and Canada. Much has been made of the "unintended consequences" of driving slaughter over the border to Mexico and Canada, and later graphs will show that has indeed been the case. However, Figure 1 exposes the little known fact that these current export levels are not historically unique.
Particular focus has been placed on Mexican exports because of the barbaric slaughter methods used in some of their local plants (as documented by undercover videos by HSUS and others). While Mexican exports accelerated dramatically after the plant closings in 2007, they also spiked in 1994 when domestic slaughter in the US was at levels over 100,000 horses per year. Likewise, exports to Canada were higher between 1991 and 1994 than in 2007.Thus while it is true that the closing of the US based horse slaughter plants in 2007 drove American horses over the borders to Canada and Mexico, the converse is not true and domestic slaughter has not historically protected American horses from going to these countries in similar numbers.

Slaughter trends following US plants closures

As previously mentioned, all three slaughter plants in the US were closed during the year 2007. The two Texas plants ceased operations in February and the Illinois plant in late September. Figure 3 shows the resulting slaughter patterns from January of 2006 through March of 2008. Figure 3
As can be seen from the red curve in Figure 3, the overall slaughter of US horses (domestic slaughter + exports) did not drop as dramatically as might be expected following any of the closings, even though domestic (US) slaughter did decline steeply following both the Texas plant closings in February and the Cavel closing in September.
The two temporary interruptions in Cavel operations discussed earlier can clearly be seen in the dips in April and again in July. Despite this, the industry had completely recovered to its peak slaughter levels by late September when Cavel slaughtered its last horse.
Two things happened during this period. First, Cavel ramped up its operations from its design capacity of 500 horses per week to well over 1,000. There is evidence that this ramp up had already begun well before the closings and was simply accelerated. This volume offset losses during the two interruptions and from the Texas plant closings. Secondly, Cavel management began making arrangements to move their operations over the border to Canada. When they were finally closed in September it took only weeks for Cavel to begin slaughtering operations at the Natural Valley Farms in Wolseley (SK) Canada.
The curve of Mexican exports (blue) shows an interesting and little known fact. Mexican exports had already been increasing since mid-2006, well before the Texas plants were closed. During the months following the Texas plant closings these exports continued with an even more rapid increase. This increase was boosted for a period of several months as BelTex dumped thousands of horses from its feedlot in Morton, Texas to slaughter plants over the border.
By September of 2007, the glut of horses from Texas feed lots had been exhausted and the exports to Mexico had begun to decline. This decline was partially offset by the continued strong flow of horses to Canada. By March of 2008 exports to Canada were approximately 50% higher than those to Mexico.
Figure 4 demonstrates how incredibly quickly Canada slaughter houses absorbed US horses. Remarkably, Canada more than doubled its equine slaughter in a single month. This was done by converting existing beef processing plants that had been struggling to compete with US beef slaughter plants. Some of these facilities had been built in response to the closing of the US border to Canadian beef due to an earlier mad cow outbreak in Canada. The number of slaughterhouses processing horses in Canada rose from three at the beginning of 2007 to seven at the end of the study period.

Figure 4

We can see from Figure 4 that Canada now depends on the US for the vast majority of the equines it slaughters. Before the closing of Cavel about 50% of the horses slaughtered in Canada were from the US, but between the closing and the end of the study period, 79.5% of all the equines slaughtered in Canada came from the US. (It should be noted that USDA numbers for horses exported to Canada for slaughter are considerably higher than the US import numbers released by Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. The USDA numbers appear to be the correct ones given their correlation with CFIS slaughter statistics as shown in Figure 4.)
To help illustrate what happened with the slaughter of American horses, Figure 5 provides a year to year comparison of the total slaughter of US horses for 2006, 2007 and the first quarter of 2008.

Figure 5

The 2006 (yellow) line represents the baseline year before any of the slaughter plants were closed. The blue line represents the slaughter rate during 2007, and the magenta line represents slaughter for the first quarter of 2008. This method of comparison is commonly used in accounting and government reporting because it provides year to year comparisons that take into account seasonal trends.
There was a significant but largely temporary drop in the 2007 slaughter level following the closings of the Texas plants in February. The slaughter rate then lagged below the 2006 levels until September when it reached parity just in time for the closing of the last US based plant (Cavel). Although slaughter again fell below 2006 levels in the last quarter of 2007, by the first quarter of 2008 it had returned to the same levels as both the previous years. The gap between the 2006 and 2007 curves represents the temporary reduction in slaughter and thus the number of horses spared from slaughter.

Summary of slaughter trends

While the slaughter of US horses and other equines dipped during 2007, it quickly returned to the same levels as before the plant closings. There were 122,459 US equines slaughtered or exported for slaughter in 2007 compared to 142,720 in 2006, a reduction of only 17% for the year. By the first quarter of 2008 the exports to Mexico and Canada had entirely replaced the reductions in US slaughter.
Returning to the stated purpose of this study, the desire was to determine whether the closing of the slaughter plants was a possible causative factor in any subsequent increase in abuse and neglect. The only mechanism by which this could have happened would have been if the closings caused a significant and sustained change in slaughter volumes. Since the resulting reduction in slaughter was quickly replaced by exports, there is no ongoing volume impact from the closings, and therefore no possibility it could significantly affect abuse levels.The only increase in abuse caused by the closings has been the longer trips and more brutal slaughter conditions that the horses are subjected to.

Abuse, Neglect and Abandonment

At this point it has been established that any increase in equine abuse and neglect must be the result of factors other than the slaughterhouse closings, such as economic and weather (forage) conditions. The year 2007 saw declines in the economy, especially in the second half of the year and serious increases in feed and hay costs. The question is whether these factors did indeed cause a dramatic increase in abuse and neglect.
As discussed in the introduction, quantifying abuse and neglect is a much less exact science than tracking slaughter. Fortunately, there is no need to put too fine an edge on any conclusions drawn from the available data. The stated purpose of this study is to simply establish whether or not a "tsunami" or even a significant increase in equine abuse had occurred as has been claimed by some articles.

Abandoned Horses

If reliable data quantifying abuse and neglect is difficult to find, data concerning "abandoned horses" is even more problematic. This is largely because state and local governments do not recognize such a category. The closest data is on "Estray" horses, which reflects the fact that it is almost impossible to determine whether a horse was intentionally released or simply escaped, and only a few states track even this data. As a result, almost every story must be tracked down individually.
The first story about abandoned horses appeared in the mainstream press just weeks after the closing of the Texas plants. The story titled Kentucky, Land of the Thoroughbred, Swamped with Unwanted Horses, was written by Jeffrey McMurray, a college basketball stringer for the Associated Press (AP). The piece was based on horses seen free grazing on a reclaimed strip mine in Eastern Kentucky and claimed they had been abandoned because of reductions in horse slaughter forced by animal rights activists.
However, the slaughter rates shown in Figure 1 contradict McMurray's claim of decreasing slaughter in the years between 2002 and 2007 and the Texas plants had been closed for only a month when the story appeared. More tellingly, it was determined that the "abandoned" horses were in fact owned by Trish Hayes of Breaks Riding Stables in Breaks Virginia. The horses had been the subject of an earlier AP story when teenaged boys were charged with shooting some of them. But by that time the story had gone international and many writers still reference the story as if it were valid.
In October a second AP story appeared in the Oregonian titled Abandoned Horses a Dilemma for Ranchers. That story claimed nine horses had been abandoned on the ranch owned by a Mr. McKenzie, but the Malheur County Incident Detail4 (police report) later showed that the incident had involved only one horse reported by Mr. McKenzie's granddaughter and it was determined to be unfounded.
To this day stories continue to surface in respectable publications that contend there is an abandoned horse crisis in America. Yet research into individual cases3 has determined that very few are accurate and even then they involved fewer horses than reported.
Only a few sparsely populated western states even keep records of estray horses. Of the states that do keep accurate records, the trends are mixed but largely flat. The largest documented increase found in Estray horses was in Arizona5 which reported a 16% increase from 2006 to 2007. As a matter of reference, that translates to an increase of only about 16 horses statewide or 8 more than the three-year average.
The picture that emerges for horses is very different than that for dogs and cats, where abandonment is common. Any owner who would simply release a horse from its pasture is aware that there is a significant liability if that animal causes a traffic accident, and dropping a horse off at a distance from its home requires the ownership of a horse trailer or the collaboration of someone who does own one. It is not an easy crime to commit or conceal.
As a result, true horse abandonment appears to be rare. The more common method of abandoning a horse is to simply leave it to forage in its pasture without medical care or supplemental feed. Thus it was determined that the focus of this study would be on abuse and neglect where there is at least some statistical evidence.

Abuse and Neglect

Again, the analysis of trends in abuse and neglect was complicated by the fact that data is not available in a consistent manner from different sources. The picture that emerged, however, was that while some areas had indeed seen significant increases in abuse and neglect cases, others had, in fact, seen declines.
For example, there was a severe drought in much of the South during 2007, which drove hay prices up in some areas by 100% and more. Texas on the other hand, which had experienced several years of devastating drought, hay shortages and wildfires, enjoyed an abundant hay crop in 2007. More over, there have been significant fluctuations in the economy during the study period.
One of the states where good data was available and where a notable increase in abuse and neglect cases had occurred was, ironically, Illinois. Illinois was the only state in the US where slaughter occurred for most of 2007. In 2006, a study of the relationship between abuse and neglect in Illinois and total slaughter in the US 2 found that on average more slaughter was accompanied by more abuse. The variation was so great year to year, however, that the study concluded there was no meaningful relationship between the two.
Figure 6 revisits this comparison with the hindsight of two additional years of data. If a reduction in slaughter caused an increase in abuse and neglect, we would expect the two curves to be mirror images of each other. Looking at the two curves in Figure 6, it is clear that there is no consistent correlation between the sets of data.
There are two notable features to the curve of abuse cases (blue); a remarkable increase in abuse between 2000 and 2002, and another steep increase in 2007. The Cavel plant in Illinois burned on Easter Sunday of 2002. The next year the abuse rate flattened. Had this slaughter been preventing abuse we would have expected the curve to increase in steepness. The original study done in 2006 speculated that the changes in abuse were more likely the result of economic or weather conditions, but did not attempt to establish this correlation partially because the data set was limited at that time.

Figure 6

If, however, we now look at the abuse and neglect data from Illinois with respect to unemployment in the state, we see a very interesting correlation between upward trends in the two sets of data (Figure 7).

Figure 7

Although the upward slopes of the abuse and unemployment data have an uncanny correlation in the periods between 2000 and 2002, and in 2007, the downward trend of unemployment between 2003 and 2006 does not appear to be mirrored by a corresponding downward trend in abuse and neglect.
At first this lack of downward correlation appears to cast doubt on just how strong the relationship is, but that is due (at least in part) to a distortion in the way the government tracks unemployment.
A person is only considered to be "unemployed" while he or she is receiving unemployment compensation. People whose benefit period has expired before they get a new job are removed from the "unemployment" roles and from the statistics just as if they had found a job.
This trick of accounting biases the numbers by amplifying downward trends (good news) in unemployment. In other words, the downward trend in unemployment is exaggerated and may in fact be nonexistent. For example, if nobody at all got a job, every large increase in unemployment would be followed by an equal downward trend as benefits ran out.
Therefore, in reality, the shape of the true unemployment curve would probably be even more like the shape of the abuse and neglect curve.
The Illinois data supports the obvious conclusion that bad economic conditions lead to more abuse and neglect. This should come as no surprise, but the fact that slaughter does not affect abuse and neglect in a positive way (if any at all), may be surprising to the advocates of the "unwanted horse" theory about slaughter's beneficial contribution to the negation of abuse.

Measuring Nationwide Abuse and Neglect

The final question that remained to be answered was whether or not there was a major increase in abuse and neglect nationwide in 2007. The only source of such data nationwide is the online database of pet-abuse.com.
The data on this site is well organized for research, but there are significant limitations to its use. Data is entered as abuse cases are flagged from other media sources. If a case is not mentioned in the media immediately, it might not be represented in the data until months or even years after charges are first placed. The data thus has a tendency to "back fill" and one can safely assume that the more recent the data is the more likely it is to be understated.
The usefulness of this data becomes lower as one attempts to determine recent trends or to determine trends over shorter periods. Additionally, in any given month the data may consist of only a dozen or fewer cases, making short term trends more difficult. These difficulties and assumptions will be discussed further when the data is presented.
Several tests were performed to determine the data distortion caused by latency and backfilling of the data in the database. The period between September 2007 and January 10th 2008 was initially analyzed within days after the end of the period. It was again analyzed at two occasions a few months apart. Based on this comparison it was determined that the backfill issue was statistically insignificant after three months. Final data collection was performed three months after the end of the study period.
The journalistic nature of the data also presented issues. For example, some cases did not include the exact number of equines, but instead used variable terms (e.g., "several"). For purposes of uniformity, these descriptions were converted to numbers using a defined constant. For example, the word "several" was replaced with the number 6 and the word "dozens" was translated as 24. In any event, these cases were not common enough to significantly skew the results.
Both the number of cases and the number of equines involved in those cases are presented. It can be seen that the two roughly track each other. Again, the analysis of abuse was only used to determine if there had been a dangerous rise in abuse and neglect overall.
Finally, only cases of owner abuse and neglect were included in the statistics. Cases involving third party abuse were not included as the motive for such abuse is outside the purposes of this study. The results of this search yielded the graph in Figure 8.

Figure 8

As expected, the data was somewhat inconsistent on a month to month basis, but one obvious conclusion can be drawn. There clearly was NOT a catastrophic increase in abuse and neglect during 2007. Other conclusions that might be drawn are a bit more risky since they might possibly be putting too fine an edge on the analysis. There appears to have been a slight drop in abuse after March and a slight upturn at the beginning of 2008.

Figure 9

Finally, it is useful to test this graph against the nationwide unemployment rates to see if the unemployment rates could have predicted something close to what we saw from the pet-abuse.com database. Figure 9 shows that comparison. A drop in the unemployment rate is apparent in late 2006, and from June onward there was an upward trend to unemployment.
There are obvious reasons why the nationwide unemployment number is a less than perfect barometer for nationwide equine abuse even if the two are closely correlate on a regional level. For example, the average unemployment does not take into account the fact that some states have larger horse populations than others and unemployment varies significantly between states. Weighting each state was beyond the scope of this study.
Even so, there are some interesting similarities between the unemployment curve in Figure 9 and the abuse case rate as determined from Pet-Abuse.com. A drop in unemployment occurred slightly before a similar drop in abuse. (Note that a drop following a relatively flat period is less likely to be an artifact than one following a recent up surge). Except for a spike in cases that occurred in March, the comparison would have been even clearer, but as previously stated the abuse data is very noisy when observed short term. Similarly, a general upward trend in unemployment later in 2007 seems to have preceded the upward trend in abuse during the last quarter of the study (first quarter of 2008).
The Illinois comparison was performed on a year to year basis which did not expose this lag of a few months. The identified lag is logically to be expected since most neglect cases take several months to become apparent (horses don't starve overnight) and then to be acted upon by authorities.
The fact that unemployment is a general barometer of trends in equine abuse and neglect is not surprising as it has long been known to have the same relationship to domestic abuse and child abuse. In the case of horses, however, it gives us a historical view into the probable number of horses that were at risk of neglect and thus "unwanted" by the definition of slaughter advocates. Unemployment is thus also an approximate barometer of the number "unwanted" horses and this fact allows us to see if slaughter has historically increased when this barometer was rising.

Figure 10

Figure 10 explores the relationship between horse slaughter and the unemployment barometer of abuse and neglect. To have a beneficial effect, slaughter would have to rise following increases in unemployment but during this decade it has done just the opposite. The same antithetical relationship existed in the 1980s and until about 1993.
However, from 1993 through 2000, the unemployment rate began a continuous decline during a well known period of prosperity. It is entirely likely that this decrease, combined with the increasing number of horses being kept in the population put supply side pressure on the slaughter industry just as demand was faltering. There were plenty of horses, but their owners were not willing to sell them at slaughter prices, and new owners probably outbid kill buyers for surplus horses from racing and other horse industries. The result was a "perfect storm" for the horse slaughter industry which produced the famous long decline.
The implication is that the horse slaughter industry may operate on a thin margin on supply side price. This implication was recently tested when Pure Thoughts Horse Rescue (PTHR) attended the famous Sugar Creek slaughter Auction in Ohio. At most their weekly auctions the bulk of the horses go to slaughter, but PTHR, financed by a benefactor, was able to outbid the kill buyers on every horse. The average price paid was $432, not significantly above the average price seen for slaughter horses.

Conclusions

Despite the difficulties posed by the data limitations discussed, several conclusions about slaughter and abuse and neglect trends can be stated with confidence:
1. While the supply of low priced horses is essential to the slaughter industry, it does not determine the number that will be slaughtered. That number is set by the demand for horse meat in Europe. Slaughter therefore is useless as a tool for controlling the unwanted horse population and instead simply creates a low end market that competes with potential buyers of low end horses and encourages a continuous supply.
2. The rate of slaughter of US horses was only temporarily affected by the closings of the US based slaughter plants in 2007, and the slaughter rate has since returned to its previous levels. There was therefore no mechanism by which these closings could have impacted abuse and neglect.
3. There was clearly no epidemic of abuse and neglect in 2007 following the closings of the US based horse slaughter plants. None was predicted by the unemployment numbers and none was found in the database of cases. In other words, on the question of whether the closings were the cause of a pronounced increase in abuse we find that neither the cause nor the effect actually happened.
4. While US slaughter rates are clearly driven by the demand for horse meat in Europe, it appears the industry operates in a relatively narrow window of supply price. If we are to accept that horses sent to slaughter are "unwanted" then we can define an unwanted horse not as one with zero value but one whose value is greater to the slaughter industry than to a potential owner and that average value is probably under $500.
5. Abuse and neglect is largely determined by economic conditions. An upturn in unemployment seen in late 2007 appears to have translated into the beginning of an upturn in abuse and neglect in early 2008. As of the end of the study period, abuse and neglect did not appear to have exceeded norms for the baseline year of 2006, but to the extent that the economic conditions continue to deteriorate, this trend may become more worrisome in the months to come.